‘Bush lied’ is pure politics

This week's column is a response to a column by Senator Mark Dayton that ran a couple of weeks ago.

With all due respect to Sen. Dayton, his column “On the closed-door session...” (11/16/05) was long on Democrat Martyrdom Syndrome but a bit short on useful information. For starters, he called the session “necessary to prompt an investigation stalled for 20 months.”

The investigation in question is designed to discover who, if anyone, exaggerated pre-war intelligence. To eliminate partisanship, committee chair Pat Roberts devised a process of evaluating statements from the administration and congress anonymously. Democrats so far refuse to take part in that evaluation unless speakers are identified.

What are they hiding from? Perhaps statements like these:

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction.”-Ted Kennedy

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology...”-Nancy Pelosi

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”-Al Gore

Democrats have rightly proclaimed Hussein a menace since the mid 90s. Unfortunately, since they have embraced the “Bush lied” hysterics, they can ill afford it to be known. The closed session Dayton refers to as “necessary” was nothing more than a smoke screen to that end.

Dayton also refers to the Jan. 2003 State of the Union, in which Bush claimed Iraq sought uranium from Africa, and states that Bush “misinformed” the nation on that day.

In fact, not only did the U.S. believe Iraq was seeking uranium, so did the English, the French, and even a former Prime Minister of Niger. When Joe Wilson returned home from Niger, the initial CIA reaction to his now infamous report was that it bolstered, not contradicted, previous intelligence.

To this day, the Butler report maintains that Iraq sought uranium and calls Bush’s reference to that search “well-founded.” Butler’s assessment of that likelihood is shared by Dayton’s own Senate Intelligence Committee.

The CIA did ultimately change its mind about the Niger story, saying “we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” That was June, 2003, five months after Bush’s speech.

That is the essence of the case against Bush. He “lied” when he reported intelligence that continues to be bolstered by Butler and the SIC, intelligence that was cleared by the CIA at the time; because CIA changed its mind five months after the fact.

For obvious reasons, that incoherent rationale has been abridged to read “Bush lied.” It would be embarrassing to have to explain the charge in detail. Thank goodness for the supporters of this theme, the media rarely asks that they do.

The “Bush lied” mantra is pure politics and does not stand up to honest scrutiny. Multiple bi-partisan commissions have concluded that it is not the case. On the subject of who had access to what, the Silverman-Robb commission even found that Bush may have actually downplayed the intelligence to congress and not the opposite.

The truth is out there for anyone to discover. Unfortunately, rather than contribute, our own Sen. Dayton chooses instead to pay homage to the unhinged. In doing so, he misleads the state and perpetuates myths that serve no purpose other than to rewrite history, painting his own party in a more favorable light.